Senate
24 March 1908

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

VISIT OF AMERICAN FLEET
QUEBEC CELEBRATIONS
QUESTION
- SENATE ELECTION, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
PAPER
NAVIGATION BILL: DESPATCHES
QUESTION
- REGISTRATION OF ASIATICS
QUESTION
- OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- STATISTICS : COMMONWEALTH YEAR-BOOK
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Luncheon Adjournment

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 9421

VISIT OF AMERICAN FLEET

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– For the information of honorable senators, I have to announce the receipt of the following cablegram, dated 21st March,1908, from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor-General -

My telegram of 2nd March and your telegram of 21st March, please inform your Ministers United States Government gladly accept invitation for visit of Fleet, and highly appreciate friendly courtesy on the part of Commonwealth.

page 9421

QUEBEC CELEBRATIONS

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I have to announce for the information of honorable senators, that on the 18th March the following cablegram, dated at Ottawa on the 17th March, was received by the GovernorGeneral from the Governor-General of Canada-

Responsible Ministers request me to forward invitation to your Prime Minister to come to Quebec and be their guest during celebration, at which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will be present, during week 22nd July to 29th July. It is sincerely hoped that Prime Minister will be able to attend personally, but if that impossible he will in any case send representative.

Thereupon the Prime Minister caused a cablegram to be sent toLord Dudley asking if he could see his way to represent Australia at the great function referred to, and the following reply has been received -

Your telegram of 19th March, Lord Dudley desires me to thank you for your kindness, and to ask you to inform your Minister he will esteem it a great honour and privilege to represent Australia at the Quebec Celebrations in July.

On the receipt of that reply, the following cablegram was sent to the Governor- General of Canada -

Government highly appreciate invitation of the Canadian Ministers, and have therefore invited the Earl of Dudley, Governor-General-elect of the Commonwealth, to represent Australia at celebrations. Prime Minister regrets that parliamentary session precludes the possibility of the attendance of any Minister with Earl Dudley.

page 9421

QUESTION

SENATE ELECTION, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, what steps, if any, do the Government propose to take to. recoup to Senator Vardon and the Hon. J. V. O’Loghlin the unusual expenses to which they were put - owing to official bungling - in connexion with the Senate election for South Australia?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The matter is under consideration, and probably some provision will be made on the Additional Estimates.

page 9421

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– At this stage I cannot give a direct answer to my . honorable friend. The South Australian measure to give effect to the agreement has been reserved for the signification of the Royal assent; but no information has yet been received as to the cause of the delayin giving such assent. The Bill to which my honorable friend has referred will be introduced in this Parliament as soon as the state of public business will permit. There is no reason why I should be vague at this stage, but the fact is that it is simply impossible to say how long the session is going to last ; that is contingent upon several considerations.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– May I ask my honorable friend whether it is the intention of the Government to delay the introduction of the measure in this Parliament until the Royal assent has been given to the South Australian Bill ?

Senator BEST:

– That is so. Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON. - Surely not?

Senator BEST:

– So far as my information goes, that is so; but if my honorable friend will give notice of the question I shall get definite information.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I shall bring the subject under my honorable friend’s notice on another day.

page 9422

PAPER

Senator BEST laid upon the table the following paper : -

Copy of further despatch, dated 19th November, 1907, relating to the organization of the Colonial ‘ Office.

page 9422

NAVIGATION BILL: DESPATCHES

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

If the despatches, a copy of -which has been laid’ on the table of the Senate, from the Secretary of State for the Colonics regarding the Navigation Bill now before the Senate, are the latest received on the subject, and, if so, has any reply been sent?
If a reply has been sent, what is the nature of it?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow -

Yes. No reply has yet been sent. One is in course of preparation.

page 9422

QUESTION

REGISTRATION OF ASIATICS

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

In view of the statement made by Mr. McLeod, President of the A.N. A. of Western Australia, to the effect “ that large numbers mi young Chinese- could be seen in different parts of the State who must have come into the Commonwealth since the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act,” will the Government take into consideration the advisableness of instituting a system of registration of Asiatics, as . recently adopted. by the Government of the Colony of the Transvaal ?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -

Inquiries are now being made into Mr. McLeod ‘s statements. When these are complete the matter will be further considered.

page 9422

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

If it is the intention of the Government daring the present session to bring in a Bill to deal with the question of old-age pensions; if not, when is it intended to do so?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows-

It .is quite impossible at this stage to directly answer this question, but practical financial proposals will be submitted probably within the-, next month, which will include a concrete proposition for -old-age pensions.

page 9422

QUESTION

STATISTICS : COMMONWEALTH YEAR-BOOK

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government toauthorize the annual issue of a statistical publication on similar lines to that compiled by Mr. T. A. Coghlan, and entitled A Statistical Account of Australia and New Zealand t
If so, when will the first volume be published, and will it be so arranged as to embrace the period since the last issue of Mr. Coghlan’* work ?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answers to. thehonorable senator’s questions are as follow -

The Government has authorized the Commonwealth Statistician to publish an Official Year-Book for the Commonwealth. It will not be based upon Australia and New Zealand as a model, but its form has been decided upon after a comparative study of the annual statistical publications of the civilized world.
It will probably be in the hands of members by the middle of April, and will contain complete statistical information foi the whole Commonwealth period, viz., 1st January, 1901 > to 30th June, 1907.

– Some timbers might be introduced which honorable senators might not desire to bring under the proviso.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That could be met by amending Senator Chataway’s request when it is submitted.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Would it not be better to limit Senator Chataway’s proposed request in the first instance to paragraph a. There might be amendments to be proposed upon that quite independently of what is contained in paragraph b.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have no objection, if it is the wish of honorable senators to adopt that course, but I, personally, see no objection to receiving Senator Chataway’s request on paragraph a. .

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [2.54]. - Before Senator Chataway moves his request, I think that Senator Story has asked a question which deserves an answer. He wishes to know whether the duty attached to paragraph a is considered by the Government to be a revenue duty. Senator Chataway’s proposed request would seem. to assume that it is purely a revenue duty, because it contemplates an increase of the duty at a time when a proclamation might issue that similar timber to that contained in paragraph a could be produced in the Commonwealth in sufficient quantities to supply the demand of local industry. The other assumption is that at the present time there is no suitable timber locally produced answering the requirements of the trade in respect of timber comprised in paragraph a. It would, therefore, be instructive, as well as useful to the Committee, to know from the VicePresident of the Executive Council whether this duty is considered a revenue or a protective duty.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– We have no difficulty in regarding it as a protective duty. It is certainly an encouraging duty. When the local development has reached the stage provided for in Senator Chataway’s proposed request will be the proper time to introduce increased protection.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Is there any soft timber of this character grown, or to be grown in the future, in the Commonwealth ?

Senator BEST:

– We have supplies of such timber, but they are not opened up yet.

Senator Story:

– I desire to move a request that the paragraph be free.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Before I can receive such a request, we must dispose of the request suggested by Senator Chataway, as the honorable senator proposes an amendment which, if made at all, must be made in the body of the item. If we deal with the duties, we cannot go back to the body of the item.

Senator Pulsford:

– Senator Chataway’s proposal is not to provide an alternative but a supplemental scheme, and I think it is likely to lead to a good deal of inconvenience if it is considered before we have dealt with the item. I think it would be better to take the item as it stands, and consider Senator Chataway’s proposed request at the conclusion of the whole division.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have said that Senator Chataway’s request involves an intirely new departure. We have, not dealt with- a similar request before, and as it now seems to be the wish of the Committee, I propose to take the paragraphs of the item first, and then the Committee can consider Senator Chataway’s proposal.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 303, paragraph a, free.

Oregon is practically the only kind of timber that’ would be affected by the duty, in view of the stipulation as to sizes, and as it is a timber which will probably never be grown- in Australia, this must be regarded as a purely revenue duty. In addition tothis, there is no timber, local or imported, that is so useful as Oregon timber for the purposes for which it is chiefly employed. In most of the States, and certainly in South Australia, the bulk of the timber used in the construction of almost every building is Oregon timber. In the mines of most of the States at any rate it is the timber that is universally used. No other timber is so suitable on account of its strength and its lightness.

Senator Fraser:

– And its cheapness.

Senator Millen:

– And also on account of its safety.

Senator STORY:

– Undoubtedly ; it is a characteristic of Oregon that it always gives warning some considerable time before breaking. In that respect it differs from many other timbers which might otherwise be substituted for it for mining purposes. In the case of some mines, the duty might make just the difference between the reduction of workmen’s wages or the cessa>tion of working in the case of some low- grade mines, and the continuance of work under present conditions. It is undoubtedly a fact that in many cases there is a very small margin between working at a payable rate and giving up work altogether. I do not think that I need labour the question. It appears to me that there are sufficient reasons why the item ought to be made free. If there was a possibility of any Australian timber being used for similar purposes, I should be inclined to move rather for an increase in the duty.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

.- - I desire to point out that we have in Tasmania timber .which is eminently fitted for mining .purposes, and which this item might be shown- to affect. I have received a letter from saw-mill owners at Duck River, Tasmania, in which they say that- fully one-third of the importations in pines could be used in our own hardwoods for flooring, lining, weatherboards, and mining purposes. The hardwood flooring is being now largely used by the Victorian Railway Department and Public Works Department, and is very highly spoken of.

The great want of our saw-millers in Tasmania is more capital. A good deal of their hardwood would be very much more used if it were properly seasoned before being placed on the market. If we could give a protective duty of 6d. per 100 feet super., these saw-millers think they would be benefited. What Senator Chataway has foreshadowed, would be a fair thing to do. It would enable many of the Tasmanian saw-millers to obtain increased capital for the production of a timber which, undoubtedly, could be used for many of the purposes for which Oregon is now employed. Their great difficulty is in reference to getting their timbers properlyseasoned, and’, as I have explained, they have not yet had an opportunity of doing all that could be done in that respect through want of capital. It is further stated in this letter that -

The cost of preparing our timbers in seasoning, racking, handling, and keeping on hand for at least twelve months, is more than the majority of bush saw-millers can finance, seeing that the margin of profit is very small indeed. Though the article supplied has fully three times the life of pine boards, it has to be supplied at a less price.

– I could not understand how that proposed request could be made applicable to timber, until Senator Chataway handed to me a circular which has been issued for the information of Queensland senators. It certainly cannot be made applicable to Tasmania., because, as Senator Keating knows, we have practically no timber except hardwood. I do not know whether blackwood can be called a hard wood, but there is no great quantity of that variety. Huon pine is, of course, a beautiful softwood, but the supply is very limited. In the circular to which I have referred I find the following statement : -

The Government of Queensland has just authorized the extension, into districts carrying enormous quantities of magnificent softwoods, of three railways, aggregating about 80 miles, at a cost of about half a million pounds. These are to be pushed rapidly forward, and will place on the markets of the Commonwealth immense quantities of valuable timbers, provided that there is a protective duty sufficiently high to warrant their extraction, and the future, growth of timber on the same area, instead of the wholesale, immediate, and permanent destruction of these splendid forests.

I see, therefore, that Senator Chataway has framed a request, which is in print, and which is applicable to the softwood of Queensland. But if it be adopted, it will give no protection to the hardwoods of Tasmania.

Senator Chataway:

– The protection will apply to Tasmanian hardwood just the same as it will apply to Queensland hardwood.

Senator DOBSON:

– We are now dealing with timber undressed, which, to a great extent, means Oregon, and in the next paragraph we shall deal with New Zealand pine undressed.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– All imported timber is softwood. Senator DOBSON.- As Tasmania has no softwood, I cannot see that the request can ever be applied in its case, but Queensland has plenty of soft timber to which it can be made applicable. The words of the request are -

Proclamation to issue as soon as it is certified to Parliament by the Minister that similar timber fitted for the requirements of local industries can be produced in the Commonwealth in sufficient quantity to supply the demands of such industries.

In Tasmania we have no timber similar to Oregon. , I also learn from this admirable circular that in Sweden and Norway, 2s. per day is paid to timber-getters. Senator Best introduced this Tariff with a statement that the great object of the Government, and of their protective policy, was to put on such duties as would make up for the unequal conditions of labour here. If in Australia a mill hand receives 7s. or 8s. a day, and in Sweden a man is paid only 2s. a day, surely there is a case made out for the imposition of, not an exorbitant duty, but a moderate duty on timber? It is stated that - 606,000 was the sum sent out of the Commonwealth last year, a large proportion of which went to pay such wages.

If there is a case where the facts and figures justify the imposition of a moderate duty, it is the case of trie timber industry. If the request is not carried, I shall submit a proposal for a higher duty.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– When Senator Story referred to the fact that imported timber was specially valuable in mines, he gave a reason which must commend itself to the judgment of every honorable senator. He showed that it was specially desirable for. purposes of. safety. Surely nothing can appeal to the Committee more strongly thain that. It will ill-become any honorable senator to take a step that would force the owners of mines to use timber” which was less suitable for their purposes, and less likely to prevent accidents. But my great argument against this ‘ duty is that timber is one of the great raw materials of scores of industries. For any half-dozen persons who would be advantaged by a protective duty on timber, you can find hundreds who would be burdened by its imposition. That is the great basis of any argument against such proposals as those in the schedule and the further proposals which I have heard rumoured - might I call them wooden ones—-for increasing the duty. It should be remembered that a very large proportion of the total value of timber im-. ported according to our import returns is represented by freight. I should think that for £1,000,000 worth of timber, according to the import returns, probably- the foreign countries that sell the timber do not receive more than £500,000 or ,£600,000, the balance going in freights. There are certain undressed timbers brought from a great distance on which the freight frequently amounts to quite as much as the original cost. All this goes to show that there is no article used in Australia which has such an enormous natural protection as timber has, and, therefore, if our timbergetters and sellers are not able to make headway without a duty they will not do very much with it. I hold in my hand a paper from a Mr. Robertson, who speaks of there being £200,000,000 worth of timber on certain areas in Australia, and reckons that that means a trade of £5,000,000 per year, which would require a very large proportion to be exported. He says -

The value of the timbers from those acres placed on our local markets and free on board for export is ^200,000,000 ; in forty years a turnover 01 ^5,000,000 each year.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That is the reason. It does not bear a transverse strain in the same way as many other timbers do. This paragraph, as Senator Story has pointed out, relates to the 12 i 6 timber. All the timber imported of that size is of the greatest use here not merely in mining, but in building operations, and is a kind of timber for which we have no substitute in Australia. Nobody can controvert what Senator Story says on that point. We have nothing to compare with it. I should be one of the last to disparage the forests of Australia, but just as in England where they have a great many kinds of woods, they import other woods required for particular purposes, so here we have to import woods that are more suitable until we can grow something else as a substitute for them. That something else cannot be Oregon, as Senator Story pointed out. Those engaged in our afforestation admit that Oregon timber’ is not likely to be grown here! No State in the

Commonwealth has done more for afforestation than South Australia has. The pine grown in the State plantations of South Australia is being used now for fruit boxes. So whenever we grow timber suitable for local use, it will be used locally. If we could grow Oregon, it would be used for the purposes for which Oregon is imported.

Senator Mulcahy:

– The honorable senator is a fair-sized man, but if he will come with me to North Queensland I will put him alongside any number of felled trees which he cannot look over. As a matter of fact, there are trees growing in North Queensland which could hardly be taken through this chamber horizontally. The tunnels on the railway line in North Queensland are fairly big, but there are plenty of cedar trees in the Atherton district too big to go through them. That will give honorable senators some idea of the size to which timber grows in Queensland. It is quite common to see silky oak 6 feet in diameter. Some honorable senators, like a great many other people in Australia, have very little conception of the variety, extent or value of the resources of this continent. The timber-getter is a pioneer who does [Valuable work in opening up country for the settlers who come after him. He goes out into the bush looking for timber, and clears tracks which are availed of afterwards by men looking foi land. If he finds timber he has to clear roads to drag it to the water or to a railway, and those roads are afterwards of use to the settler. He finds and opens up new country,- and the settler avails himself afterwards of the results of his efforts. I hope to see the day when we shall not bt dependent even upon our own natural timber resources, but will adopt a large system of afforestation, when the various> States will go in for planting the most suitable varieties of timber on what would otherwise be waste land. How can the States, or even private individuals, be encouraged to do that, except by showing them that timber-growing in Australia is a payable industry,, and that timber is too valuable to be felled and burnt off for clearing purposes? That is practically what is done with a large quantity of valuable timber in Australia to-day. I join with those who say that this natural industry ought to get a little protection, the same as any other. I am prepared to give it the highest protection I can get. I shall vote against Senator Story’s request, and for any proposition to increase the duty.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– The arguments so far have been overwhelmingly against the position taken up by Senator Story. The free-trade section of the Tariff Commission recommended a duty of 10 per cent., and so it seems rather like swallowing the principles of free-trade to strain at the amendment which is now being proposed. With regard to the merits of oregon and hardwood - and Queensland probably possesses to an even greater extent than Tasmania does the finest qualities of hardwood - a witness before the Tariff Commission gave interesting evidence. In answer to questions 35274-5 he gave the information that a piece of hardwood 9 feet by 6 inches by 4 inches is equal in strength to Oregon g- feet by 12 inches by 6 inches, and the one would be as easy to handle as the other, strength for strength. He further stated, in answer to questions 35277-80, that birdwood has twice the straining power of oregon, and one-third less the quantity of the former would suffice for mi,ning purposes as against the latter. This meant to some extent a reduction of cost. Senator Givens has a practical acquaintance with mining, and if his information that the square-set system of timbering is being abandoned at Broken Hill is correct, it is evident that there can no longer be claimed for oregon for mining purposes a superiority over the hardwoods of Australia. It was certainly a revelation to find a request to make this paragraph free coming from Senator Story, for if any consistency has been maintained throughout the discussion of the

Tariff schedule it has been shown by him. He has been a staunch protectionist from beginning to end. All that it was necessary to say to him to induce him to support a duty was - “ Something can be produced in Australia,” or “ Some industry requires developing in Australia, and should have as high a duty as possible.” It is therefore rather extraordinary to find him - the stalwart of the stalwarts in the cause of Australian industries - suddenly turning into an outright free-trader. There have been many changes, twistings, and turnings in this debate, and consequently we are prepared for surprises, but the surprise furnished by Senator Story must be very nearly the record. It will be interesting to see whether he will maintain his position.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, and the forest rangers are also given power to compel the companies to cut out the young jarrah saplings in order to allow the young forest to rehabilitate itself ; and in forty years the timber can be cut over again. There are forests in Western Australia that are being cut over to-day which were cut over forty years ago. If. honorable senators have any doubt about the question, they can turn to the evidence taken by the Tariff Commission. In the report of the free-trade section they will find numbers of instances of statements by local timber merchants and others to the effect that imported timber is net underselling local timber -

Evidence was given in Western Australia that pickets of local timber were sold in the rough at from ros. to 15s. per 100 according to size. Local producers were not undersold by importers. Oregon pickets are landed at ?6 103. . per 1000 - 4 1/2 feet lengths.

Senator Lynch:

– How do prices compare with regard to weatherboards?

Senator PEARCE:

– 1 am not sure about that. Tongued and grooved flooring is the only instance I know of. I have been a buyer myself in Western Australia, where weatherboard houses are very common. A man who would put up a weatherboard house to-day and use pine weatherboards would be thought to be a fit subject for the Fremantle lunatic asylum. In very few cases are pine weatherboards used there to-day. Builders use jarrah.

Senator Lynch:

– Pine is used- on the gold-fields on account of its cheapness.

Senator PEARCE:

– But not on the coast, where, without exception, jarrah is used. The following statement is also contained in the report of the protectionist section -

In Western Australia prior to Federation, the Karri and Jarrah Timber Company were not represented in the other Australian States. At present the Inter-State demand was increasing, as compared with a few years ago. This was especially noticeable in 1903. In 1904 there was a falling-off, because the price of their timber could not be sufficiently reduced to meet the competition of Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland in the world’s market.

Mr. Smith, the general manager of the Karri and Jarrah Company, said that he was not afraid of local competition. He admitted that jarrah needs no protection. One has only to turn to the evidence given by Mr. Smith where he speaks of jarrah as being much superior in respect of its capacity for standing lateral strain. Jarrah, however, is not so good in this respect as karri, which is very strong and will stand a lateral strain as great as any known timber in the world. I come now to the statement of Senator Givens that the square-set system has been abandoned in Broken Hill. I had my doubts when the honorable senator made the statement, and I therefore wrote a note to Mr. Josiah Thomas, the member for Barrier, in another place, who knows more about Broken Hill than any man in this Parliament. I wrote to him* -

As Senator Givens has asserted, dealing with the timber duties, that the system’ of square-set timbering in Broken Hill mines has practically ceased; if this is so, I should like to have a statement from you on the question.

Mr. Thomas replied

It is quite a mistake that there is no squareset timbering in Broken Hill at present. There is a tremendous amount of it still being done -

That does not say that! it has practically ceased.

Senator Givens:

– I say that it has practically ceased.

Senator PEARCE:

– .The note goes on - and a great deal of the timbering - in fact, the great portion of it underground - has still to be done by Oregon timber, which cannot be produced as yet in Australia.

Senator Givens:

– I stick to my assertion notwithstanding Mr. Thomas’ statement.

Senator PEARCE:

– He says-

The oregon timber must be used even if the duty were 3s. or 5s. per 100 feet.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The Government do not want the Tariff as they originally introduced it.

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

– That is their look out, not mine. I think it is desirable that there should be a clear definition in the Tariff of what is meant by a superficial foot. The absence of a definition in the past has led to continual disputes between timber importers and the Customs authorities. The protectionist section of the Tariff Commission dealt with this matter in their report, and recommended the definition to which I have referred. I admit that Sir John Quick, in referring to the matter in the report, or in some speech on the subject in another place, said he was not personally in favour of the definition recommended, but that the matter was pressed so strongly upon the Commission that he thought it necessary to sign the report recommending it to the Government, in order that it might be considered by Parliament. I know that there is a strong desire on the part of people connected with the limber industry in Queensland for the re-insertion of the definition as it originally appeared in the Tariff. The Director of Forests of Queensland, who is a very competent official, and who has published an excellent work on the commercial timbers of Queensland, which I should like some honorable senators to see before they finally decide that Queensland has no timber suitable for .the rest of Australia, says in some notes which he has supplied to honorable senators from Queensland -

The restoration of the definition of a superficial foot is- urgently asked by all timber workers in Queensland. As the matter stands at present there is a great inducement to have the sawing of thin boards done in the cheap labour countries which export the timber, thus saving the cost of the more expensive Australian labour, also of the part removed by the saw and the freight thereon. The matter was most exhaustively explained to the Tariff Commission, hence their insertion of the definition.

I ask Senator Story whether he will be good enough to give me an opportunity, by withdrawing his request temporarily, to move a request for the re-insertion of the asterisk after the word “ foot,” with a view to restoring the foot-note which was struck out in another place?

Senator Story:

– Certainly.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [5.52]. - I point out that there is no necessity for introducing the asterisk, as Senator Chataway can deal with the matter to which he has referred at the end of the item. If there is to be a definition of what a superficial foot means, anywhere in the Tariff it will cover the timber included in this item. What the honorable senator suggests, However, raises another question, since if we define a superficial foot to be 12 inches square, 1 inch in thickness, boards J-inch or J-inch thick will have to pay quadruple and double the duty respectively. It would be tetter to consider the point raised at end of the item.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– With regard to Senator Chataway’s statement, that he is backing up what the Government originally proposed, I wish to say that it is true that the protectionist section of the Tariff . Commission made a recommendation of this kind, and in the Tariff, as submitted in another place, provision was made for the definition of a. superficial foot, which was to be 12 inches By 12 inches, with a thickness of 1 inch or less.

Senator Story:

– -A very good definition.

Senator KEATING:

– It was pointed out by my honorable colleague, the Treasurer, in another place, that it’ was not advisable to stand by that definition, as under it timber J-inch or J-inch in thickness would carry double or quadruple the duty proposed. Consequently he decided to adopt the pre-existing practice in the Customs Department, which was in consonance with the trade practice, and to regard a superficial foot as 12 inches by 12 inches and 1 inch thick. Under the definition proposed a board J-inch thick, 12 inches by 12 inches, would contain only half a superficial foot, and a board a J-inch thick, 12 inches by 12 inches, would contain only a quarter of a superficial foot,, and four of such hoards would be required to make 1 superficial foot. The Treasurer, in the circumstances, when the item was readied, and without debate on the question, decided to revert to the preexisting practice of the Department.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– - Some charmingly new views have been introduced into the debate on the duties under consideration ; and they make it a sufficient excuse for me to say a word or two. During the earlier part of the debate, congratulations were offered by honorable senators opposite to some of those who sit on the Opposition side of the Chamber. But that was displaying an amount of partiality to which I can be no party. Some congratulations ought to be offered to Senator Story and other honorable senators who sit near him, who have introduced themselves in a new character, and have shown evidence of the dawning light of free-trade upon their minds. No honorable senator has been more definite in his statements that Australia is capable of producing anything, or growing anything, than Senator Story has been ; and if any one ventured to suggest that there were possibly some- things that could be produced better in other countries, they were at once accused of being Little Australians. For that reason, I am particularly glad that even at this eleventh hour the truth has begun to dawn even upon Senator Story’s mind, that there may possibly be something which, with all its advantages, Australia cannot very well produce, perhaps because of climatic or other unfavorable conditions. He has asked us to request a striking out of the duty. Other honorable senators propose to increase the duty to is., or higher, if they can get “it. Now on the top of those propositions, Senator Chataway comes forward with one which would have the effect of making the duty 4s. instead of 6d. as proposed by the Tariff. In other words, Senator Chataway’s proposition is for a duty of is., plus a system of measurement of which he now gives notice, which would multiply the duty by two or four as the case may be; and, subsequently, if the duty is made is. 6d. per 100 feet super., it. will become, under his system, a duty of 35. or 6s. So that there is a wide range of duties for honorable senators to choose from, varying from nothing to 6s. I am not complaining of the variety of range, but of the difficulty of making a final choice. Senator Chataway has acquired from the Director of Forestry in his State - a gentleman whose opinion must be accepted with a great deal of respect - certain information which he has given to the Committee. While I intend to respect that gentleman’s statement, I find, nevertheless, that the first assertion which he makes in it is absolutely contradicted by the official figures. The gentleman quoted by Senator Chataway refers to the timber that is drawn from the cheap labour countries of the world. Now, the total imports of this timber other than oregon which come to ‘Australia from the cheap labour countries are under 500,000 feet super. On the other hand, a great quantity comes from the United States and Canada, and I hardly think that any one will say that the wages in America for this class of work are less than those paid here. So that I am driven to the conclusion that Mr. McMahon- has allowed his zeal for the Department under his control to carry him to the length of ignoring the official facts which are as open to his in- spection as thev are to mine. There is another remark in the document emanating from Mr. McMahon as to which I will say a word. He says -

In Queensland the timber revenue - which I assume to be from royalties paid on timber obtained - has risen from ,£14,000 to ^22,000 in one year alone,

Senator Keating:

– I expect that that would be licence fees, or something of that kind.

Senator MILLEN:

– The figures are, at any rate, indicative of the expansion of the timber trade in Queensland, and for stum page charges only. I do not know what those charges are, but, at all events, there is an indication that the timber industry has expanded in one year a little over 50 per cent. It cannot, therefore, be said that the industry is a struggling one, and that there is any need of further assistance. If an industry has. expanded ‘by 50 per cent, in twelve months it cannot be in much need of assistance. But it is curious that while that expansion has been taking place, it has been impossible for timber merchants inmy own State to get their orders supplied from Queensland. Senator Turley admitted that, under existing conditions, there was a difficulty in fulfilling orders from the other States. Those two facts, taken together - the expansion of the industry as shown in the official figures and the difficulty of supplying outside orders - are sufficient to show that the Queensland timber industry is progressing very satisfactorily. Under these circumstances, I fail to see how Queensland can ask the other States to penalize themselves until she is in a position to meet their requirements. She is not in a position to do that at present. Therefore, the contingent duty to be proposed by Senator Chataway has very much, more to recommend it, whether from a free-trade or a protectionist stand-point, than .have either of the proposals to increase duties immediately. I have grave doubts as to whether the proposed division Xa. will be effective; but, at least, before it can.be given effect to, Parliament will have an ample opportunity of inquiring into the matter. Every honorable senator will have a chance of making up his mind directly upon this one item, without confusing the issue with difficulties in regard to a thousand items in the whole Tariff. He will be able to sift the information placed before him, and come to a reasonable determination. In the meantime, the position with regard to timber generally will ‘ be left as at present. Reverting to the statement which I made just now that the timber industry is not in need of Tariff encouragement, I point out to honorable senators that in spite of all that has been said - rather loosely, I am afraid - about cheap foreign goods, it is quite evident that during the period since the first Federal Tariff was imposed, the price of timber in Australia has gone up considerably. It is rather singular that the arguments being used to-day in favour of these duties are those which were used six years ago. We were told then practically that without a duty the industry would be conducted under a very serious handicap. But what has 1 happened ? . The people in the trade tu-day are getting more for their timber than the amount of the duty which they ask for. The amount which they asked for then was is. 6d. >per 100 feet superficial.. The price of timber has gone up very much more than1s. 6d.So that without any duty at all, the timber people to-day are in a better position than they were six years ago.

Senator Dobson:

– The price then was a starvation price.

Senator Trenwith:

– And wages have gone up.

Senator MILLEN:

– The one follows the other. As they have now a rate above what they asked Parliament to impose by way of duty six years ago, as wages have gone up, and as they have got this without any legislative enactment, it cannot be denied that the millers have no more claims upon us than they had six years ago, and have not been prejudiced by the refusal of Parliament to give them higher duties.

Senator Chataway:

– It is not proposed to give them higher duties at present.

– I am not going to vote to put on a duty to swell the railway revenue of any State without conferring any benefit on any one. The argument is that the effect of the duty will be to convert the mine-owners of Cobar and Broken Hill from the use of Oregon into the use of Australian timber. The effect of that will be largely to increase their freight bill, and I do not think that that is a desirable thing, especially as the effect will be to close down some of the less prosperous mines of Australia. As, however, there was a duty of 6d. upon Oregon under the old Tariff, although I can see no justification for it, nor can I regard it as anything but a revenue duty, still I am not inclined to take the duty away. I cannot support it in the sense of advocating it, but, as it was in the 1902 Tariff, I shall vote to leave it as it is, just as I voted to keep a duty of 12½ per cent. on steel rails. As I have said before, I am not disposed to take away any protection that existed under the 1902 Tariff. Therefore, I shall vote against Senator Story’s proposal, and against any other that seeks to disturb the status quo.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– Senator Millen has dealt with the question of charging the duty on only the actual quantity of timber imported. This old standing grievance has been brought under the notice of the Treasurer on, I suppose, a dozen occasions by different persons engaged in the sawmilling industry. What they have always contended - and I think that the Treasurer generally has agreed with their contention - has been that timber less than i inch thick should be charged duty as if iti were an inch thick. I believe that relief to that extent was promised to various deputations whenever the matter was brought before the Parliament. I know that from Queensland the matter has been represented quite a number of times. One witness gave evidence on the subject before the Tariff Commission, and I presume that it was on his evidence that the protectionist section based the following recommendation : -

That a superficial foot be defined as follows : - “ A superficial foot of timber shall mean an area of i square foot on one surface, and being i inch or less in thickness.”

That has been, I believe, the usual practice in connexion with timber generally. The report of the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission contains this statement -

As an illustration of the result of the present practice, the witness stated that the duty on 800 feet of Baltic dressed boards § inches thick would be is. 1 1/2 d. per 100 feet, or 9s. in all, whereas the duty, according to a’ strictly legal interpretation of the Act, should be 24s., namely 3s. per 100 feet super. If imported in flitches 5 inches thick, the timber necessary to cut 800 feet of f-inch boards would be subject- to a duty of 7s. 6d., or is. 6d. per 100 feet. The same quantity of timber imported in the latter form would require an expenditure of £1 to convert into f-inch dressed boards, namely 12s. for sawing and 8s. for dressing. For every 800 feet of timber imported in f-inch boards the revenue suffers to the extent of 15s., and Australian workmen lose £1 in wages. Under present conditions inducement is given to cut up and dress timber in foreign countries, which is contrary to the intention of the Tariff.

We have dealt with many matters on very much the same lines wherever it has been possible to provide that the work should be done in Australia. We know very well that if an importer wants timber less than an inch thick he will get it cut outside, because he can get it done more cheaply there than here.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Then it will come in as dressed timber.

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes. Senator Chataway has inquired whether this would be the right place in which to submit a request to restore the definition of a superficial foot of timber which appeared in the schedule originally. Senator Story has expressed his willingness to withdraw his request temporarily, and if we want to protect the interests of Australian workmen a proposal to that effect should be made now, because the saw-miller can import his timber in any thickness he likes above 1 inch.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– Senator McColl, I do not think that you were in the chair when I suggested that I might move a request for an asterisk to be inserted after the word “ feet “ with a view later on to submit a request for the restoration of the foot-note which was in the Tariff when it was submitted to the other House. I have already given some reasons for taking that course, and Senator Turley has backed them up much more ably than I could do. ‘ I think that the Minister might give some reason other than the mere statement that when the Bill came before another place the Treasurer rose and said that he thought that they ought to revert to the old method of measuring timber. If that is the only reason to be advanced for a reversion to the old method of measuring, I want to know why he does not revert to the old Tariff ? I desire to ascertain from you, sir, whether if Senator Story’s request be withdrawn temporarily I should be in order in submitting the request I have outlined?

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– In my ‘ opinion it is not necessary to insert an asterisk after the word “ feet “ or anywhere else. If it is a proper place at which to give information an asterisk can be inserted when the Tariff is finished and printed.

Senator Millen:

– Do we want an asterisk at all?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I agree with the honorable senator that it is not wanted, but if it were thought necessary, it would only Be inserted to attract attention. It is no part of our duty to request its insertion. I agree with all those who say that a superficial foot of timber should be a foot of timber 1 inch or less in thickness. When it is, realized that things can be manipulated in the manner which has been stated, it will be recognised that it is very desirable to make some definite provision. It has been stated by an honorable senator that in the past it has been the custom to allow for a thickness of 1 inch in measuring the superficial area of timber. .That has not been the universal practice. It has been the practice in some States to measure the timber in one way and in other States in another way. When we are framing a Tariff we ought to fix a practice. I am of opinion that in the measuring of a board an inch should be taken to mean an inch or less in thickness. Before the Tariff Commission, some merchants made a great complaint that in the case of shelving they had to pay for a whole inch, although- the board measured only seven-eighths of an inch thick by eleven and three-quarter inches in width, and they claimed that a deduction should be made. What blocked them from getting that concession under some of the State systems of measurement was that the shelving had been invoiced as measuring 12 inches by 1 inch. This applies more particularly to timber dressed than to undressed timber. So far as paragraph a is concerned, it does not apply at all because it relates to timber in sizes measuring from 12 inches to 6 inches, or its equivalent. Dressed timber, however, is brought in in thicknesses ranging from one quarter inch up to five-eighths inch or even seveneights inch and often it is dressed on both sides. Very likely if it is quarter -inch timber it is dressed on both sides, and four dressed boards are put together to make 1 inch in thickness. That is not. the intention of the Tariff. Its object is to protect the workers in the dressing of timber. If we were to allow men to bring in four quarter-inch boards dressed on both sides as 1 inch of timber, that object would be frustrated. The evidence of some witnesses before the Tariff Commission was to the effect that if it were dressed on both sides it ought to be measured on both sides. I am sure that Senators Millen and Symon would raise a loud cry if they found that a board one quarter of an inch thick, and dressed on both sides, was dutiable, as if it were 2 inches thick.

Senator Millen:

– I should be too shocked to say anything.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Still if we abide by the principles of the Tariff, it must be admitted that it ought to be adopted for both sides, because the extra duty is not imposed on the actual amount of timber, but in respect of the work which is expended thereon. We should charge the same duty on the timber in the rough as on the dressed timber if we had riot that point in view. The more labour that is spent on the dressing (of (timber the higher the duty will be. Suppose that a duty of 3s. 6d. or 2s. 6d. were levied on a board measuring 12 inches wide, is inches long, and 1 inch thick, and a man were allowed to put together four quarterinch boards, dressed .on both sides, to make up 1 inch in thickness, what would be imported? Would not the thinner boards, dressed on both sides, rather than the timber in the rough be imported from countries where probably they have the necessary machinery right to their hands, and as cheap labour as we have here? It has been shown that by those means not only the workers in Australia would be deprived of work, but the Government would be deprived of revenue. When we come to dressed timber, I hope a proper definition of superficial feet will be inserted. So far as the undressed timber is concerned, an inch in thickness is the proper thing, but in regard to dressed timber we ought to make it very clear that it means an inch or less in thickness.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McColl:
VICTORIA

– I consider that this is not the proper place to insert the definition of superficial foot, lt ought to come in later, at the end of the item, because there are several paragraphs dealing with dressed limber. The first paragraphs deal only with undressed timber, and the definition ought not to be put in at this stage.

Senator Turley:

– Does that mean that the asterisk will have to be put in when we come to paragraph d?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I do not think that it is necessary to put in an asterisk at all. We can insert a note at the end of the item, specifying what a superficial foot means.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I do not suppose that you, sir, will give a prophetic ruling as to some item which we have not yet reached.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I am dealing only with the question of inserting the definition at this particular stage.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– It has been said that the additional duty will be a serious expense to certain mines which use oregon timber. The Australasian Joint Slock Companies’ Year-Hook shows that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company alone, from 1884 to 1906, paid ,£8,200,000 in dividends, and £712,000 in bonuses, or practically £9.000,000 in all, an average of £370,000 yearly paid to the shareholders. If we allow an increased cost of rs. per foot on all the oregon timber which goes into Broken Hill in one year, whether it is used for mines or buildings, the total amount of the duty that will be paid on it will come to £7,500 That is not a very large amount when set off against £370,000, the yearly profits of one mine alone.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.4.5 p.m.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 303, paragraph a, free (Senator Story’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative’. Request negatived.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 303, paragraph a, is. per too super, feet.

Under the old Tariff the duty was 6d. on oregon, New Zealand pine was free, and the rate on all other timber was is. 1 am practically asking the Committee now to increase the duty on oregon by 6d.

Senator de Largie:

– Make it 2s.

Senator DOBSON:

– I cannot do that. I am a moderate protectionist, and do not desire to cripple the mining industry, but it is only right that the’ timber industry should enjoy a Reasonable share of the benefit of the protective policy which the electors have said the Commonwealth ought to adopt. That is all I am making the proposal for. The timber millers ask for justice, and I am frying to give them justice. If honorable senators think they ought to be put off without justice, or without a modicum of the protection which almost every other industry is getting, I cannot agree with them. ‘I listened with great interest to what Senator Pearce and Senator Pulsford said, but there is something to be urged against them. I am aware that soft timber must come in for certain purposes, but I believe that if we go in for scientific forestry, and have a moderate protective duty, our timbers will come more and more into use, for we have in the various States almost every quality of timber that we desire. Tasmanian stringy bark flooring is being extensively used, and would be more so with the help ‘of a duty. I believe that it is used - and this goes to show that there is no occasion to import Baltic pine,

Oregon, or anything else for flooring - in the following buildings - Receiving Home, North Melbourne ; new hospital, Royal Park ; several State schools, both town and country; Melbourne Cricket Ground new grand stand, and the1 new baths at St. Kilda. In the two last named the stringy bark flooring was specified by the architect. A stock of some 800,000 feet is on hand, and there will be orders shortly for about 1,500,000 feet more. This shows that the stringy bark flooring is in great demand, and why it is not entitled to moderate protection 1 do not know. The railways for two years have given continuous contracts for the supply of this wood. I have a certificate from Mr. H. V. McKay, of the Sunshine Harvester Works, as follows : -

In reply to your inquiry regarding my opinion of the Tasmanian stringy bark- flooring, 4^ by J, which I have ‘used extensively for floors at ‘my works at Sunshine, and also I have had my own dwelling floored with it, I have the highest opinion of its quality and durability. Our floors are most satisfactory, and this timber stands traffic of all kinds much better than the imported limbers. You have an order in hand to supply, and I shall continue to order it, which certainly shows my confidence in this class of flooring.

The secretary of the Victorian RailwaysCommissioners writes : -

In reply to your letter, I am directed by the Commissioners to- intimate that Tasmanian seasoned flooring, lining, and weatherboards have been extensively used by this Department and found to be satisfactory.

That shows that in many of the cases where soft timber has been used, there is no occasion to use it, because the people who have tried the Tasmanian and other hardwoods say that they are eminently satisfactory. Honorable senators seem to forget that the timber industry is like every other industry. It can be encouraged by a duty, I hope that the railways will encourage it by cheaper freights, and it can be encouraged by the use of the product. Seeing the enormous fortunes that some men have put into the industry, I hope that justice will be done)” and that my request will be agreed to.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– - Before we take a vote, I should like to point out, especially, to my protec’tionist friends, including Senator Dobson, that if they vote for a duty of is. on this paragraph, they will be practically reducing the duties on all the subsequent paragraphs. Honorable senators will observe that the rates of duty increase as the sizes of the timber diminish. One of my objects in moving that paragraph a of this item should be free was that it would mean an increase of the duties on the smaller sizes of timber. If we have a duty of is. per superficial foot on the large sizes of timber, and of only 2s. per superficial foot on the smaller sizes, the effect is the same as the reduction of the duty on the smaller sizes by 6d. per superficial foot. Honorable senators who claim in this matter to represent the interests of labour will notice that all the , evidence given before the Tariff Commission by the members of labour unions was in favour of a low duty on the first paragraph of the item, or that the timber included in it should be admitted free, and in favour of higher .rates of duty than those recommended by the Tariff Commission on the subsequent paragraphs. I direct attention to this in order that honorable senators may not inadvertently defeat their intention to protect Australian labour. Our experience is that the Government will vote against the proposed increase of duty on the subsequent items if there has been any agreement in connexion with them in another place, and I emphasize the fact that by increasing the duty on paragraph a of the item, the effect will be to practically reduce the duties on the timbers included in the subsequent paragraphs of the item.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I hope the Committee will not vote for an increased duty on paragraph a of this item.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Even though it has been proposed by Senator Dobson ?

Senator HENDERSON:

– Not even then. I think- that the duty provided for in the’ schedule affords the industry all the protection it requires. It would be a mistake to increase it for another reason which has not yet been urged. In another place there was a great deal of discussion upon this sub-item, and the division list shows that even the duty of 6d. was carried only by a majority of two. I therefore see no possible hope that such a request as that submitted by Senator Dobson would be accepted in another place. As all the reasons advanced appear to me to establish the fact that the duty provided for in the schedule is sufficiently high, I shall vote against Senator Dobson’s request.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [7.59]. - I hope the Minister of Home Affairs will not think me unduly pressing if I suggest that it would be well that the Committee should know whether the Government intend to support the request which has been submitted for an inincrease of this duty by 100 per cent.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I have to say in reply to the honorable senator that the duty proposed bv the Government as the Tariff was originally introduced was is. 6d., not alone upon the timbers contained in paragraph a, but also upon New Zealand pine, now contained in paragraph b. In another place, mainly because New Zealand pine and oregon were included in the one paragraph of the item, strong opposition was manifested to the imposition of any duty at all. It was thought at one stage of the discussion that an .amendment to free the whole of the timbers contained now inparagraphs a and b would be successful, and my honorable colleague, the Treasurer, succeeded in getting honorable members in another place to agree to put New Zealand .pine in a. separate paragraph, and leave the timbers included in paragraph a dutiable at 6d. per 100 superficial feet after the 6th December, 1907. The Government are prepared to support the request now submitted to make the duty is. Under the 1902 Tariff the duty on oregon was 6d., New Zealand pine was free, but on all other timber undressed n.e.i. the duty was is. As a matter of fact, if the House of Representatives does not see its way to agree to the request, should we carry it, to make the duty in this case is., the duties which would operate would not be the same as before, the duty on New Zealand pine would be 6d. instead of free, but on other timber 6d. per 100 superficial feet instead of is.y as “under” the 1902 Tariff. In the circumstances, we propose to support the request moved by Senator Dobson.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I shall not say that I have been surprised to hear the statement of the Minister of Home Affairs, because it is quite in accord with what has transpired in connexion with previous items. I have risen only to affirm that this is another instance in which Ministers are departing from an arrangement deliberately made elsewhere. An arrangement was made elsewhere, and discussion took place in regard to it. As a result of the arrangement that was come to, where there was but one paragraph we Snow have two, and on paragraph a a duty of 6d. per 100 superficial feet was decided upon. The Minister of Home Affairs now says that he intends to depart from the arrangement made by his colleague elsewhere, and apparently for no other reason than that he thinks that by so doing he will please a number of the supporters of the Government in this Chamber.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I wish to say with respect to Senator Millen’s concluding remarks that there is no member of the Committee who has so repeatedly, in season and out of season, referred to the action of the Government in certain circumstances as calculated to impair the authority and standing of the Senate.

Senator Mulcahy:

– The honorable senator was not talking of this Chamber, but of the Government.

Senator KEATING:

Senator Story:

– In Hansard there is no sign of a division or a conflict, or a controversy of any kind, but it merely records an arrangement of the kind made by the Treasurer. I ask my honorable friend to consider whether, under such circumstances, it is desirable that he should support! the increase of this duty by 100 per cent. Before the dinner adjournment, I understood Senator Keating to announce that the Government were prepared to leave this duty as it’ was, and support the request prepared by Senator

Chataway, and not that they proposed to increase the duty to is. or is. 6d.

Senator Turley:

– They did not announce that.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The representatives of the Government were distinctly asked whether they were going to support an increase of this duty, and either Senator Best or Senator Keating intimated that they were going to support Senator Chataway’s request.

Senator Best:

– Exactly, and so we are.

Senator Turley:

– After this request has been disposed of.

Senator - Sir JOSIAH SYMON.- There was no reference of that kind made, and I can assure the Minister that a different impression was conveyed to the Committee. I think that Senator. Millen has not expressed himself too strongly as to the undesirableness of any arrangement made by the Government, or any duty accepted by them pursuant to that arrangement, being departed from here.

Question - That the House of Represen-.tatives be requested to make the duty on item 303, paragraph a, “Timber, undressed, n.e.i., 12 x 6 in.” per 100 super, feet, is. (Senator Dobson’ s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Request agreed to.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I’ move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 303, paragraph b, by inserting after the word “Pine” the words “and Red Beech.”

My reason is that New Zealand red beech is the only wood at present available for the manufacture of bent-wood chairs in Australia. The machinery for that work has been already imported, and the manufacture of bent-wood furniture, particularly chairs similar to those imported from Austria, has actually been begun in the Commonwealth. The wood used in Austria is very similar to the piece of New Zealand red beech which I hold in my hand. This wood is very dense and close in the grain, and, unlike most other woods when sharply be/nt, it does not open in the grain. The gentleman who furnished me with this piece of timber, and with a great amount of information in connexion with it, is always willing, to my own certain knowledge, to use Australian wood if he can possibly get it. I can show, also, other pieces of Australian timber ot a very superior quality used in the manufacture of furniture. This gentleman informs me that the only other Australian timbers that in any way approach New Zealand red beech for bent work are the tallow wood, found in limited quantities in Tasmania,, and the crowfoot elm of Queensland; but neither of those is so -close in the grain or so dense. Wishing to give the bentwood chair-making industry a fair chance in the Commonwealth, I moye this request to include New Zealand red beech with New Zealand white pine under paragraph

I hope honorable senators will support it. I can assure them that all the bentwood chairs needed in the Commonwealth can, and will, be manufactured in Australia in the very near future at a price that will enable them to compete with the imported article.

Senator Chataway:

– The Queensland Crowsfoot elm is one of the finest timbers for bent-wood furniture to be found in any part of the world.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I have seen samples of Australian timber remarkably like the sample of New Zealand red beech which has been exhibited. I have seen this timber exhibited in the Queen’s Hall, as a production of Victorian forests. I have seen also in Tasmanian trophies magnificent specimens of Tasmanian myrtle, which I believe is really a beech ; but I am sorry to say that it has been greatly neglected, although efforts have been made from time to time to bring its qualities under notice. It is capable of receiving a high polish, and seems to possess all the qualities claimed for the New Zealand red beech. In the circumstances, I think the Committee should pause before accepting Senator McGregor’s request.. I intend to move after it has been dealt Avith -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 303, paragraph B, by inserting after the word “ undressed “ the words “ sizes 12 inches and 14 inches width by f of an inch thick.”

Request agreed to.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– With the intention of subsequently proposing that New Zealand pine in certain sizes should be admitted free for the manufacture of butter-boxes, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 303, paragraphb, per 100 super. feet,1s.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 14

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Mulcahy) proposed -

That the Houseof Representatives be requested to further amend item 303 by inserting the following new paragraph : - “ (bb). New Zealand Pine, undressed, for butter boxes; sizes 12 and 14 inches in width by¾ inch thick - free.”

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I hope that Senator Mulcahy will not pursue this request. The practice which prevails in the Customs Department in relation to New Zealand pine that has been imported for butter-boxes, is to allow rebates. When the pine has been manufactured into butter boxes for export, an arrangement is made that the whole of the duty paid is refunded.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Do I understand that after the butter is packed the makers of the boxes get a rebate?

Senator KEATING:

– Yes.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Then I desire to withdraw the request.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 303 by inserting the following new paragraph : - “ (bi). To come into operation on date to be fixed by Proclamation, and in the meantime subject to duty as specified in item 303 (a) and (b) above. Proclamation to issue as soon as it is certified to Parliament by the Minister that similar timber fitted for the requirements of local industries can be produced in the Commonwealth in sufficient quantity to supply the demands of such industries, but no such Proclamation to issue except in pursuance of a Joint Address passed on the motion of Ministers by both Houses of Parliament stating that such production is sufficient for the purposes required.

Timber, viz. : - “ (a) Timber, undressed, n.e.i. in sizes of 12 inches by 6 inches (or its equivalent) and over, per 100 super. feet, 1s. 6d. “ (b) New Zealand Pine and Red Beech, un dressed, of all sizes, per 100 super. feet,1s. 6d.”

The reason for this request is not to secure an immediate increase in duty. I am moving it because I think that, in view of the enormous importance to Australia - not to any particular State - of developing a real forestry system and timber business throughout the Commonwealth, some such provision in the Tariff is essential. Australia offers the most marvellous possibilities in the way of the development of its timber resources. I do not mean that we should, with the axe and with fire, denude our lands as we are doing now, of our timber, but that we should bring our forests under close supervision and attention through the instrumentalities of the various States Governments. I shall not weary the Committee with a long speech on a subject to which I have ‘ devoted a great deal of attention, and in which I am very much interested, namely, that of afforestation. But I will point out that in such countries as India, Germany and Norway Governments have taken a strong hand in the business of not only developing their timber resources but also in controlling the harvesting of those resources, and putting them upon the market. When we ask for this additional duty to be imposed, we shall certainly give Parliament an opportunity of discussing the whole question, as Parliament ought to do. before duties are finally adopted. It will, I think, be obvious to any honorable senator that it is impossible to make the States Governments of Australia - all of which, I think, are blameworthy in the matter of the neglect which they have shown in the past - take up the matter of afforestation with the view of looking after their timber resources properly, until there is a real timber trade, and an inducement for people to go into the forests, cut timbers, and bring them to market. We admit that at the present time there is a shortage of timber. Even Queensland has not only a considerable difficulty in supplying the demand, but there is a positive inability to meet the requirements of other parts of Australia. Therefore, no attempt is now made to raise the duty to an amount like is. 6d. per 100 feet until Parliament can be satisfied that the wants of the various industries of Australia can be supplied. That Queensland - I am not in a position to speak for the other States - is “really doing her best in the matter, is, I think, fairly well known to honorable senators. But she has only just woke up to her duty. That is shown to .Tome* extent by the fact that last week, in the Queensland Parliament, three railways were agreed to by the Legislative Assembly, involving an expenditure of something like -^”450,000, these three lines being designed - other railways were also agreed to, but I am not referring to them - to run into timber districts and make available the large forest resources of that State. Further than that, Queensland now has a ForestryDepartment, and though it has started in a mild sort of way, still, it has made some progress, and I have every reason to believe that, with the prospect in front of her of developing a profitable trade, such as is held out under such a proposal as this, Queensland will make her Forestry Department one of the finest in the Commonwealth, and one of the most productive and useful. I will not weary honorable senators with quantities of figures, but I should like to point out to them that during the last twenty years Queensland has cut out 2,000,000,000 feet of timber, and at the present time she is holding as timber reserves no less an. area than 3,500,000 acres of land. I am not talking about firewood reserves, but timber reserves, held under Crown supervision, to prevent the lands being denuded and the forests wiped out by the ordinary careless way of chopping down timber to put it on. the market. With such an area as that, which, as honorable senators will admit, is considerable, there is a possibility of Queensland developing an enormous business. The time will come, and is rapidly coming in various parts of “the world, when many countries will have run out of their timber resources. Australia is only in her infancy, and we have enormous areas of land in this country which can be used for such purposes. It is the duty of this Parliament, even if we do not see our way - as I do not think we do at present - to put a considerable duty on timber, at any rate to say to the people : “If you go into the forestry business in a proper manner, developing your resources and proving to the Federal Parliament that you are really utilizing them to the best advantage, we are prepared to give you substantial protection to enable you to carry on your business profitably.” In moving this request, I am at liberty to say that I am acting in full consultation with my colleagues from Queensland, and also in consultation with the various Departments Connected with forestry there. 1 believe that the opinions expressed by the. officials connected with forestry in my State are those which are largely held by similar officials in the other States. When this schedule goes before another place, I hope that it will be recognised that the object of the request is not to raise duties immediately, - but to secure the establishment of the forestry business in Australia on a firm, sound, and lasting basis.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I think the form in which the request is put to the Committee is one with which no reasonable senator could very well disagree. If there is any industry in the Commonwealth that is likely to be stimulated to a greater degree of activity and to a greater output by the hope of an increased duty, it is the timber industry. There is not one of the States which has not large timber resources, and when those who are instrumental in developing those resources see before them the possibility of obtaining increased protection, they will, I believe, be moved to take steps in a very desirable direction. I hope that an enormous impetus will be” given to the industry as a result of our action. I trust that honorable senators will agree to the request, and that another place will see its way to accept it.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– The Minister is. going a little bit too far and too fast in assuming that no honorable senator can dissent from the request now proposed.

Senator Keating:

– I said “ no reasonable senator.”

Senator PULSFORD:

– I can and do object to the request, and I think I am one of the most reasonable senators, in comparison to those who are going baldheaded for all sorts of duties. I deeply regret the plunge which honorable senators seem to be. making in all directions for bigger duties. I shall not weary the Committee with a statement as to why this additional duly should not be imposed, but I feel that it is a step in the wrong direction. It is calculated to deaden people’s activities, and to make them rely upon the State to do that which they ought to do for themselves.

Question put. The Committee, divided. Ayes ….. 14

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Request agreed to.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I desire to move in an altered form the request of which I have given notice. In its wisdom the Committee has decided in favour of a duty of is. per 100 superficial feet on undressed timber, and it would be going back upon that decision if I were to move a request that any particular class of undressed timber should be made free. I intend to observe the decision of the Committee in that respect, and therefore I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 303, paragraph n, by leaving out the words “ including door stocks” and inserting the following new paragraph : - “(m). Timber undressed, in sizes less than 7ft. 6 in, by 10 in. by 2^ in., for door stocks, per 100 super, feet, is.”

– In paragraphc, it is proposed to place a duty of 2s. per 100superficial feet on timber undressed, in sizes of 7 inches by 2½ inches, and upwards, and not exceeding 12 inches by 6 inches. But now Senator Pearce proposes the low duty of1s. per 100 superficial feet, on timber undressed 7 feet 6 inches, by 10 inches, by2½ inches, if brought in for door stocks. Obviously, the result of those two duties, if the request were agreed to, would be to encourage the cutting down of the timber outside the Commonwealth. Timber which might be suitable for the manufacture of doors, would come in under paragraph c at 2s. per 100 feet, whilst the same timber, having undergone more preparation and more cutting, would come in under the honorable senator’s request at half that rate, which would simply promote the doing of the work outside instead of inside the Commonwealth.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– Senator Pearce seems to be afraid that a handicap is about to be placed on those who are making doors. But there is another way out of the difficulty. Instead of reducing the duty on the door stocks, the honorable senator could move to increase the duty on the manufactured article. The protectionist section of the Tariff Commission state that the following duties on doors were suggested by the representatives of the Federated Sawmill, Timber Yard, and Wood Workers Employés’ Association -

Doors of wood,1¾ inches thick and over (each), 10s. ;1½ inches and under1¾ inches, 7s. 6d. ; 1½ inches and under, 5s.

Senator Pearce:

– And they wanted the door stocks free.

Senator TURLEY:

– Undoubtedly, but in almost every industry people who ask for protection for themselves demand that anything which comes from outside, and which they use as their raw material, should be free. That, however, is not the policy of the Government, or the object which this Committee has in view. I am prepared to support Senator Pearce if he proposes to increase the duty on the completed doors, and leave the rate on door stocks as in the schedule. ; Senator PEARCE .(Western Australia) [9.56]. - Both Senators McGregor and Keating had but one objection to my proposal - that they desired to encourage the importing of the large-sized timber and its cutting up here. So do the Federated Saw Mill employes. The protectionist section of the Tariff Commission state on page 350 of their report -

In South Australia, the witness who gave evidence represented the South Australian branch of the Federated Sawmill, Timber Yard and Woodworkers Employes Association. He asked for the remission of duties on the larger sizes of timber, with heavier duties on the smaller sizes.

They, like Senator McGregor, want the Larger sizes to be imported- and the cutting up to be clone here -

The object of his Association was to encourage the importation of timber in large sizes, and at the same time discourage importations in small sizes.

That is exactly what the Minister and Senator McGregor say. Now let us see what they recommended in respect to door stocks! At page 349 of the report, I find this-

The following table shows the alterations in the present Tariff as suggested by the Adelaide branch of the Federated Sawmill, Timber Yard and Woodworkers Employes Association on timber, doors, &c, and the comparison therewith with the present duly. ‘

Then, under paragraph l of the table, I fmd that the existing duty was 20 per cent., and that they recommended that door stocks should be free. So that the members of this association were, in entire accord with Senator McGregor and the Minister as Co the desirability of having the timber cut up in the Commonwealth. lt is clear that they were most interested in the question. They’ knew that under their recommendation instead of doors being imported ready-made, door stocks Would come in in the rough, as 1 ask, and they would have the- dressing of them, whereas if the present proposal is carried out, we shall have a return to the old practice of importing doors ready-made.

Senator Turley:

– Why not raise the duty on doors?

Senator PEARCE:

– Because the duty on doors is already high enough. The price of an imported door in bond is less than 1 os., and the duty is 7 s. 6d. That should surely be high enough. I do not propose to argue the matter further, but I appeal to honorable senators not to dis turb the existing position. We have stopped the importation of doors, and why should not that position be permitted to continue when no injustice is done, to any one, and when work is conserved for Australian workmen? Every protectionist member of the Committee should vote for the request .1 have submitted.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 303, paragraph d, by leaving out the words “ including door stocks,” and inserting the following new paragraph : - “(di). Timber, undressed, in sizes less than 7 ft. 6 in,, by 10 in. by 2^ in. for door stocks, per 100 super, feet, is.” (Senator Pearce’ s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Request negatived.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 303, paragraph d, by leaving out the words “including door stocks” and inserting the following new paragraph “(m). Timber, undressed, in sizes less than’ 7 ft. 6 in. by io in. by 25 .in. for door stocks, per 100 super, feet, is. 6d.”

I point out ‘that honorable senators who oppose the request are really -penalizing the whole of the other States in the manufac- hire of doors for the benefit of Queensland. I do not know whether they intend to do that

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC

– It is Queensland the honorable senator is aiming at.

Senator PEARCE:

– For the benefit of Queensland and the United States of America,. I appeal especially to members of the Labour Party to say whether they think the saw-mill employes of Adelaide would have made the representations they have made if they did not think they would be in their interests. These representations have been made without a. single dissentient voice by the Adelaide and Victorian saw-mill employes. Thev have asked that these door ‘stocks should be admitted duty free.

Senator Turley:

– At the same time they asked for an increase of 20 per cent, on doors.

Senator PEARCE:

– I am not asking for an increase of the duty on doors, but I see no justification for increasing the duty on a raw material beyond what it was under the old Tariff.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I intend to support the old duty, and I shall give a few brief reasons for doing so. When in Queensland about two years ago, I visited in Maryborough the principal Queensland factory for the manufacture of doors and window sashes. I was informed by the manager that he was so busy that he could scarcely supply the orders he received from Melbourne and Sydney. He admitted that Federation had done his particular industry a great deal of good, and that he was as busy as he could possibly be. I take it that he knew his awn business, and, in the circumstances, I see no reason for increasing the amount of protection afforded to his industry beyond that provided for in the old Tariff.

Senator Findley:

– That was two .years ago, and all sorts of things have happened in that time.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If it hf.d been two weeks ago we should have had a reference to something that happened two years ago. As I am referring to a: condition of affairs that existed two years ago, after we hf.d had some experience of the operation of the old Tariff, my remarks do not suit the Himalayan protectionist who has just interjected. I wish also to say that, notwithstanding the brisk trade this Mary borough factory was doing, the wages paid in the industry were simply disgraceful. I saw lads working in the factory for 6s. per week. I asked grown-up men whom I found working mortising machines what wages they were paid, and they informed me that they were getting 14s. per week. The highest paid man I could fi/nd working in the yard outside received the magnificent wage of 5s. per day. These were the wages paid when the work of the factory was so brisk that they could not supply all the orders received.

Senator Sayers:

– Where does the new protection come in?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– We have yet to learn ; but in the meantime it is clean- that this industry was sufficiently protected under the old Tariff, and I am not prepared rb increase the ‘protection afforded to an industry that is so overwhelmed with orders that it is unable to supply the local demand.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators will see from one of the clauses of the Bill that a South African preference is continued in force. I should like to direct attention- to the fact that an arrangement with South Africa exists at this moment, whereby the goods on which Senator Pearce is willing to impose a duty of is. 6d. can be imparted from South Africa under a duty of is. 6d., less 25 per cent., or, in other words, under a duty of is. 1 1/2 d. Why should we admit these goods under a duty of is. 1 1/2 d. if imported from South Africa, and impose a duty of 2s. 6d. as proposed in the schedule if thev ;-.re imported from other parts of the world ? If South Africa is able to supply these door stocks at the duty named, we should not charge a higher duty on imports from any other part of the world. On the other hand, if South Africa is not able to supply these goods at all, the South African preference is a bogus preference. I should like the Minister to inform the Committee why, if South Africa can supply these goods, exporters of them from other countries should be called upon to pay twice the duty imposed on imports from South Africa; and why, if South Africa cannot supply the goods, such a bogus piece of preference should be continued in existence.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria.

– Senator de Largie has intimated his in- tention .of voting against the duty proposed in the schedule, and in favour of the duty under the 1902 Tariff ; and he gives as a reason that when he paid a visit to Queens’land he inspected a factory, and satisfied himself that at that time, although the factory was kept going from morning till night, those working for the proprietor were in receipt of sweating wages. If there is one thing that would move me to vote for increased duties, it is the possibility of the application of the principle of the new protection to such an industry. Moreover, the facts to which the honorable senator referred were supplied to him two years ago. Much may have happened in the meantime. The Queensland senators tell us that the number of employes in the industry has increased, and that the conditions are now very much better. In addition to that, there is now in power in Queensland a Government which, while it is not a Labour Government, is being supported by the Labour Party. That Government has promised to introduce legislation on the lines df the Victorian Factories Act, under which the condition of the workers will be improved. It is hoped that that legislation will be in operation in a short time. The very fact that the factory to which Senator de Largie has referred was going full steam ahead two years ago is evidence that there was a demand for its material in Melbourne and Sydney. It does not matter to me where an industry is established. I am prepared to support it, in accordance with protectionist principles. I believe that the increased duty proposed is justified. I believe that it will give an impetus to an established industry; and if the working conditions are not as Senator de Largie and I would like them to be, there is a greater prospect of their improvement under a higher duty.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

.- I quite admit that the statements made by Senator de Largie are correct as applied to conditions when He was in Queensland. The wages were very low, and I do not know that they are much better yet. Unfair wages are paid in the timber industry all through. But that is no reason why those unfortunate conditions should not be changed. There is at present no legislation dealing with industries in Queensland, except that employers cannot pay less than half-a-crown a week. But labour legislation has been introduced, and will, I believe, pass into law, because the last elections in Queensland were un-‘ doubtedly indicative of a desire of the people for industrial legislation. If it has succeeded in New South Wales and Victoria in raising wages to something like 50 per cent, higher than were ruling previously, it seems to me that the establishment of Wages Boards in Queensland will have a similar result there.

Senator de Largie:

– Could not the employers pay a decent rate of wage under the present rate of duty?

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes, they could, because their business has increased wonderfully. But the idea of the employers is to get their material as cheaply as possible. Labour is practically part of the material which they want, and the; try to get it as cheaply as they can. There are very few employers who, unless they are absolutely compelled, will pay good wages for .labour. That is practically the reason for the existence of the Labour Party. The fact that employers reckon labour as a commodity, just like other material, brought the Labour Party into existence as a protest. The industry in question is one that can very well be carried on in Queensland. Timber is exported from that State in the log. A great deal of it is available for making these door stocks. I think that a good case has been made out for an increased measure of protection, and that the Queensland workmen have good cause for asking that they should be put upon the same level as workmen employed in similar industries in New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I asked the members of the Government a little while ago to give us some explanation as to why such a high duty as 2s. 6d. per 100 feet should be asked for when, under a treaty with South Africa, timber is allowed to be imported from that country at the old duty of is. 6d., less 25 per cent. - or only is. 1 1/2 d. I wish the representatives of the Government to make a statement on the point, and to” let us know why duties more than double should be charged to other countries than are charged to South Africa ; or whether the reason is that the preference is simply a bogus preference?

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– My honorable friend,- Senator Pulsford, is extremely anxious on the subject of the advantage of a preference to South Africa. That is a matter that concerns South

Africa, which asked for the preference. But this I know - that the main importations of door stocks come from America, and the object of this duty is to benefit our own people, and to limit the importations.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– I propose to support Senator Pearce’s request, because it- is not proposed to increase the duty on finished doors. If the Government were prepared to support a request for an increased duty on .the finished door, I should vote for it. But it is most unfair to submit a proposal in this form. Australian door-makers, under the old Tariff, were just able to compete against the American finished article. To increase the cost of what is practically their raw material without raising the duty on the finished article would certainly have the effect of causing Boors to be imported from America. Queensland timber .is fit for doors, but not so suitable as the American timber, and will not be used in the southern States. The people of Queensland, although they have the ‘ timber; have not the enterprise to develop their industry. There is plenty of evidence in the Tariff Commission’s report to show, moreover, that Queensland timber is not so suitable as is American timber. I am delighted with the enthusiasm displayed by the Queensland senators regarding this industry. On previous.’ questions they have been divided. This unanimity is delightful. But my main reason for voting against the increased duty is that the finished article is to be charged the old rate of duty. Therefore, I trust th’at Senator Pearce’s request will be agreed to.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested, to further amend item 303, paragraph d, “Timber,” by leaving out the words “.including door stocks,” and inserting the following new paragraph: - “ (di)- Timber, undressed, in sizes less -than 7 ft. 6 in. by 10 inches by i inches, for door stocks, per 100 super, feet, is. 6d.” (Senator Pearce’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Pearce) put -

That the. House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 303, paragraph o, by leaving out the words “including door-stocks” and inserting the following new paragraph : - “ni. Timber, undressed, in sizes less than 7 ft 6 in. x 10 in. x 2^ in., for door-stocks, per 100 super, feet, 2s.”

The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Request agreed to. Progress reported.

page 9473

ADJOURNMENT

Luncheon Adjournment

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– In moving -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I desire to mention that to-morrow, as on Wednesday last, the sitting will be suspended from 12.45 p-m. to 3- p.m. in order to allow honorable senators to attend elsewhere.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 March 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080324_senate_3_44/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate24 March 1908

VISIT OF AMERICAN FLEET

Senator BEST:Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

QUEBEC CELEBRATIONS

Senator BEST:Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

QUESTION

SENATE ELECTION, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McGREGOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator BEST:Protectionist

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator BEST:

Senator BEST:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

PAPER

NAVIGATION BILL: DESPATCHES

Senator MACFARLANE:TASMANIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

REGISTRATION OF ASIATICS

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

STATISTICS : COMMONWEALTH YEAR-BOOK

Senator STEWART:QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:Protectionist

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator CHATAWAY:Queensland

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Best:

Senator Millen:

Senator Best:

Senator Story:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Best:

Senator McGregor:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Chataway:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Millen:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator BEST:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator BEST:

Senator Story:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Pulsford:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator STORY:South Australia

Senator Fraser:

Senator Millen:

Senator STORY:

Senator MACFARLANE:Tasmania

Senator Story:

Senator Millen:

Senator MACFARLANE:

Senator KEATING:Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator Sayers:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Chataway:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Millen:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Millen:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Millen:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Gray:

Senator KEATING:

Senate
24 March 1908

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator STORY:
South Australia

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator MCGREGOR:
South Australia